OPEN ACCESS

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education ISSN 1305-8223 (online) 1305-8215 (print)

2017 13(1):201-222 DOI 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00612a

© Authors. Terms and conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) apply.

Correspondence: Jari Lavonen, University of Johannesburg, South Africa & University of Helsinki, Finland

jari.lavonen@helsinki.fi

Physics Teacher Knowledge Aimed in Pedagogical

Studies in Finland and in South Korea

Heidi Krzywacki University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Byeong-Chan Kim Kyung Hee University, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA

Jari Lavonen University of Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA & University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Received 15 May 2016 ▪ Revised 14 August 2016 ▪ Accepted 21 September 2016

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the pedagogical studies of Finnish and South Korean physics teacher

education programs that guide teacher educators to support student teachers’ to build

readiness for acting as professional teachers in a secondary school classroom. Research on

the domains and origin of teachers’ professional knowledge provides a framework for

analyzing the programs and the potential support of the program for becoming a

professional teacher. First, the aims of the pedagogical studies are categorized, resulting in

ten themes that characterize the programs. Second, the programs are analyzed in the

framework domains of teacher knowledge and the origins the knowledge is suggested to

learn. The domains of knowledge include the knowledge needed in consuming and

producing educational research, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content

knowledge. Distribution among the four domains of teacher knowledge varies in Finnish

and South Korean programs, reflecting the differences in the national education cultures.

Pedagogical studies in Korean physics teacher education are more theoretically oriented

than their Finnish counterparts. However, the Finnish and Korean programs do bear

similarities, such as an emphasis on reflection and a research orientation, as a part of their

pedagogical studies.

Keywords: physics teacher education, secondary school physics, teacher knowledge

INTRODUCTION

Finnish and South Korean (henceforth, simply “Korean”) science education have received

interest from teacher educators, researchers, journalists, and education policymakers all over

the world since the release of the first Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

results in 2002. This interest is a consequence of the results (ranking among countries) achieved

by Finnish and Korean 16-year-old students in PISA Science (OECD, 2007; 2010). Teacher

education, as well as teacher quality, has been regarded as one of the reasons behind the

H. Krzywacki et al.

202

students’ good performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rockoff, 2004) although, for example,

the socio-economic status of the school district and classroom size do make this relationship

complex (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004).

Auguste, Kihn, and Miller (2010) analyzed teacher education in Finland and Korea in

order to identify good teaching practices and the influence of teacher education on PISA

results. According to their findings, successful recruitment procedures and the cultural respect

for teachers set solid grounds for high-quality teacher education and quality of teachers. In

both countries, teachers are educated at university level programs. However, Auguste and

colleagues (2010) did not conduct a careful analysis of the content and structure of the teacher

education programs. Althogh, the culture and traditions of education are different and the

comparison of two very different programs is challenging, we decided to compare the

pedagogical studies of physics teacher education programs at one Finnish and one Korean

university, both of which were located in their capital cities. Because of the differences in

context and history of education, we avoid making heavy conclusions and suggestions for

other contexts (Lederman & Lederman, 2015).

Our aim is to discuss and compare pedagogical studies of physics teacher education

programs in Finland and Korea by analyzing intentional instruction agendas or curricula. The

analysis of curricula has been an important area of education research (e.g., Carlsen, 1999;

Grossman, 1990; Hashweh, 2005). Even if curriculum analysis hardly provides information

about actual practice and the hidden curricula of teacher education as such, it is important to

discuss the outlines of teacher education programs that teacher educators follow while making

decisions concerning instructional practices, content, and learning materials, as well as student

assessment. In addition to the domains of teacher knowledge, the origins of teacher knowledge

is essential for elaborating how teacher knowledge is designed to accumulate over the courses

and teaching practices of a teacher education programs.

This paper addresses the question: How do pedagogical studies, as part of physics teacher

education, aim to build student teachers’ knowledge in Finland and Korea?

State of the literature

Not only domains of teacher knowledge but also origin of knowledge matter in teacher

education

Teacher students learn from practice but reflection is an essential part of learning process

Contribution of this paper to the literature

It is possible to produce high quality teachers with different teacher education programs

Teacher education is embedded in a particular societal and cultural context that needs to be

taken into consideration while comparing and developing the programs

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

203

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE

The framework for analyzing the Finnish and Korean teacher education programs is

based on the domains and origin of teacher knowledge views. However, from the students’

perspective, contents and activities related to separate knowledge domains and the origins of

this knowledge intertwine in the implication of the program; the latest occurs in teaching

practice when student teachers assume the teacher’s role in the classroom.

Domains of Teacher Knowledge

The structural analysis of teacher knowledge and the classification of teacher knowledge

domains provided here are a framework for comparing the pedagogical studies of physics

teacher education programs in Finland and Korea. A well-known approach for describing a

teacher’s knowledge base dividing it into subject-matter (content) knowledge, pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK), and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) (Carlsen, 1999; Gess-

Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Hashweh, 2005; originally based on the work

by Shulman, 1986, 1987). We follow this simple model of teacher knowledge in our analysis,

even though the original model has been augmented; for example, Gess-Newsome and

Lederman (1999) introduced teachers’ contextual knowledge and defined it as knowledge of the

context of teaching. However, the simple model better works in our study because we will

analyze teacher education programs where the sentences are short and lack context.

Content (subject matter) knowledge constitutes a knowledge domain related to expertise in

a particular subject, such as physics. It includes conceptual and procedural knowledge in the

given domain. Furthermore, a teacher needs to understand the nature of knowledge—that is,

the epistemological and ontological aspects of the subject. However, content knowledge is not

the focus of this research.

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a knowledge domain that distinguishes teachers

from other subject specialists (Carlsen, 1999; Shulman, 1987). PCK is the synthesis of all

knowledge needed for the teaching and learning of a certain topic (Grossman, 1990). Thus, it

is always related to subject-matter knowledge (see e.g., Grossman, 1990; Nilsson, 2008).

According to Gess-Newsome (1999), the following areas have been associated with PCK: (1)

teaching or instructional strategies, assessment strategies, and collaboration strategies; (2)

knowledge about student interest, motivation, and the learning of conceptual and procedural

knowledge and skills; (3) knowledge of science learners, like student thinking, misconceptions,

and cognitive and affective demands of tasks and activities; (4) knowledge about resources

available to support teaching and learning; curriculum knowledge and goals for student

learning (see also Abell, Rogers, Hanuscin, Lee, & Gagnon, 2009). When a teacher employs

PCK in the planning and implementation of a lesson, he is focusing on a question that he wants

students to be able to answer, and how he facilitates the development of student

understanding. In European tradition, especially in Germany, France, and the Nordic

countries including Finland, the term “didactics,” or more precisely, “didactical

H. Krzywacki et al.

204

transformation” (in German, didaktische Transformation), is associated with processes similar to

those discussed under the PCK domain (Kansanen, 2002).

The third main category of teacher knowledge is general pedagogical knowledge (GPK)

(Gore & Gitlin, 2004). It has a special reference to broad principles and strategies of classroom

management and organization that appear to transcend subject matter. Hativa, Barak and

Simhi (2001) proposed that GPK includes pedagogical principles and classroom strategies with

no relation to subject matter. Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999) argue that general

pedagogical knowledge consists of the following general knowledge areas related to

pedagogy: (1) classroom management and organization, (2) instructional models and

strategies, and (3) classroom communication and discourse.

Basic academic competencies, such as research skills, are not emphasized in the original

knowledge domains introduced by Shulman (1986, 1987). However, for example, the “teacher

leadership” movement emphasizes teachers as consumers of research-based knowledge in

order to be able to act as curriculum specialists (Harris, 2003; Lieberman, 1992 ;). In both the

Finnish and Korean traditions, teachers are regarded as autonomous academic professionals

who are both consumers and producers of educational research knowledge (Jakku-Sihvonen

& Niemi, 2006; Kim, B. C., 2001). Therefore, in the context of Finnish and Korean teacher

education programs, one knowledge area should be included in the model of teacher

knowledge: knowledge or competence to consume and produce educational, research-based

knowledge.

The Origins of Teachers’ Knowledge

The origin of teacher knowledge is connected to the dilemma of the “way of knowing.”

In a form of a question, we can conceive of it as “From where does teacher knowledge arise?”

Here, we follow Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler (2002), who distinguish practical and

professional knowledge in order to describe the ends of the continuum regarding the origin of

teacher knowledge (see also Cohen, 2008; Korthagen, 2007; Pendry & Husbands, 2000).

Professional knowledge is built on research-based, scientific information on teaching

and learning; furthermore, it is characterized by its generalizability and scientific character.

Students become familiar with this knowledge by utilizing research literature and carrying

out small-scale educational research projects. Gitlin and colleagues (1999) state that student

teachers’ conceptions of research should form the basis for research-based teacher education

and pave the way for making research a part of teacher education. One possibility is combining

research activities with practical experience through a research project completed as part of

teaching practice (Brinkman & van Rens, 1999). This would also serve to strengthen the skills

needed for professional development and lifelong learning. However, since student teachers

only partly understand what an authentic research process is like, it is challenging to provide

research-based knowledge in a form that is easy for them to utilize. Cohen (2008) elaborates

on the learning process, noting that it requires both consuming and producing educational

knowledge (see also Pendry & Husbands, 2000).

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

205

Hiebert and colleagues (2002) identify three essential features of teachers’ practitioner

knowledge: (1) it is linked with practice and grounded in a real-life context, addressing specific

problems related to processes that really exist in the classroom; (2) it is specific, detailed, and

concrete; (3) it is integrated, meaning that it is linked with practice and organized by the

particularities of practice. Van Driel and colleagues (2001) conceptualize experienced teachers'

practical knowledge as action-oriented and person-bound. This knowledge integrates

experiential knowledge and formal knowledge with personal beliefs. Since physics student

teachers hardly have any teaching experience before their initial teacher education courses, it

is not easy to adopt strategies such as peer coaching or collaborative action research, which

can be quite valuable when employed as a part of in-service teacher education.

It is possible to transform practitioner knowledge into professional knowledge through

special procedures and activities organized and supported in teacher education. The idea is to

make teacher knowledge public and commonly shared and, consequently, to support student

teachers’ learning from their experiences. Hiebert and colleagues (2002) emphasize that, in

order to fulfill the requirement of taking place in the public domain, the representation of

knowledge must allow for communication and reflection with others. Therefore, reflection

should be supported in various ways, for example, by carrying out guided small-group

discussions during teaching-practice periods. Reflection refers to a process in which an

experience is recalled, considered, and evaluated, usually in relation to a broader purpose

(Zimmerman, 2002). Similarly, Rodgers (2002) describes reflection as a meaning-making

process comparable to a research process and lists phases of reflection: setting aims and

recognizing the problem(s), observing one’s own behavior in practice, describing

observations, and analyzing observations and experiences. The emphasis on reflection

characterizes of the pedagogical studies of teacher education in both Finland and Korea

(Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Yun, 2002).

A professional teacher is often viewed as both a critical user and producer of educational

knowledge (Gitlin et al., 1999; Pendry & Husbands, 2000; Reis-Jorge, 2005). A teacher is a user

of educational knowledge when theory and practical experience are combined, or when

educational situations are interpreted based on theoretical knowledge. The capacity to

produce educational knowledge is needed when a teacher builds on knowledge that is based

on her practical experience. Still, as Reis-Jorge (2005) notes, it is challenging for students to

advance from consuming educational research to applying research knowledge and skills in

school practice. In order to develop readiness to consume and produce educational

knowledge, student teachers should be required, for example, to conduct their own small-scale

educational research projects (Gore & Gitlin, 2004).

H. Krzywacki et al.

206

THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

The teaching profession in Finland is highly appreciated, and it continues to appeal to

and attract young people. This situation is explained by the fact that Finnish teachers are

considered professionals who take responsibility for planning and evaluating activities,

besides teaching in the classroom (Kansanen, Tirri, Meri, Krokfors, Husu, & Jyrhämä, 2000;

Simola, 2005). In the Finnish education system, decision-making power is decentralized to the

local level, and each municipality is responsible for planning the local curriculum, together

with schoolteachers, in accordance with the National Core Curriculum (NCCBE, 2014) and for

monitoring the quality of education. The “culture of trust” means that educational authorities

and national-level educational policymakers believe in teachers and their knowledge of how

to provide the best possible education for children and youth. For example, there have been

no national or local school inspectors since the late 1980s, neither national-level assessments

of basic education nor systematic evaluations of teachers (Sahlberg, 2011).

The Finnish education policy has aimed to promote educational equality that challenges

teachers in a special way. All learners, despite their various backgrounds and abilities, are

typically placed in heterogeneous classrooms; thus, teachers are called upon to support the

learning of all students (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Laukkanen, 2008). Moreover, equality

is promoted through a basic education system that is free of charge (i.e., schoolbooks and other

learning materials, school meals, transportation, and health care are provided to everyone).

Neither private schooling nor tutoring explains the good learning outcomes of Finnish pupils

in general, whereas the private education sector has a great impact on learning outcomes in

Korea (Kim, Lavonen, & Ogawa, 2009).

Physics Teacher Education

Finnish secondary physics teachers of grades 7–12 hold a five-year master’s degree (300

cp1). Secondary teachers typically teach two subjects, such as physics and mathematics, in

lower and upper secondary schools. Physics teacher education is organized in cooperation

between the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Education at the University of Helsinki. The

program comprises studies in two main areas: subject matter-related courses taught in the

subjects’ departments, and pedagogical courses (60 cp) overseen by the Department of Teacher

Education. In the secondary teacher education program, students take a major (140 cp) and a

minor (60 cp) in the subjects they intend to teach. They are expected to acquire a solid

understanding of content knowledge of physics, especially the subject’s conceptual

framework, on the basis of undergraduate courses at the subject department (Evagorou,

Dillon, Viiri & Albe, 2015; Lavonen et al., 2007). Unlike the Korean system, in Finland, there is

no special teacher examination to earn a teacher credential other than the university

graduation diploma.

1One credit point (cp) equals approximately 27 work hours, including lectures, small-group work, and self-directed learning.

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

207

The one-year pedagogical studies (6o cp2) foster a solid ground for functioning as a

teacher. Courses can be classified into four categories: general education, educational research,

subject pedagogy, and teaching practice (see Table 1). Students apply research methodology

in their small-scale educational thesis. Moreover, different dimensions of the teaching

profession, such as the social, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and historical bases

of education, are discussed. The aim is not only to develop students’ awareness of various

themes, but also to reflect broadly on one’s own personal conceptions of teaching and learning.

The potential for lifelong professional development is considered essential (Lavonen et al.,

2007; Lavonen & Krzywacki, 2011).

THE KOREAN EDUCATION CONTEXT

The national-level school curriculum in Korea emphasizes quality of education and all

citizens’ equal opportunities for education (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

[MEST], 2009). The curriculum sets the basis for education in all school subjects. Regional

guidelines allow some flexibility for schools and their teachers to customize their programs.

The teaching profession is popular in Korea as in Finland; only 5% of all applicants are

accepted into the teacher education programs (OECD, 2004). However, despite the popularity

of the teaching profession and the careful selection of eligible students, some concerns about

the quality of teachers remain (Lee, 1995; Park, 2002; Yun, 2002). With this in mind, the Korean

government has set three major goals for improving standards for the profession. First,

teachers need to build the competence required to be autonomous experts. Second, school

education should satisfy the public’s demand for high quality. Third, a teacher’s career should

mean a stable and consistent position. In practice, the current movement in Korea is to increase

teacher empowerment and upgrade their professional competence. After graduating from a

university, pre-service teachers are required to pass a competitive examination administered

by either a metropolitan or provincial office of education in order to obtain a teaching position

(MEST, 2009).

In contrast to the Finnish system, the Korean teacher evaluation system has existed since

2010, aiming to improve teachers’ professional competence. Teachers who receive poor

evaluations are required to undergo additional training to address their particular needs

(MEST, 2010). Teachers with high professional expertise can apply for leading positions at

schools. Professional excellence can also be awarded with the nomination as a master teacher,

one who acts as a peer mentor developing and disseminating effective teaching methods

(MEST, 2009).

Basic and secondary education are free in Korea. However, the proportion of private

expenditures on education in Korea is the highest among OECD member countries (OECD,

2005). Both students and their parents consider extra private education a vital part of the

2 One credit point (cp) equals 27 hour-long lessons comprising lectures and small-group work, apart from self-directed learning.

H. Krzywacki et al.

208

system (Kim & Kim, 2002). The effectiveness of a teacher and a school are assessed through

the evaluation of students’ learning outcomes (Bullough, Clark, & Patterson, 2003; Goe, Bell,

& Little, 2008).

Physics Teacher Education

Korean physics teachers are educated in four-year-long bachelor’s degree programs

(130–150 cp3), usually provided by a college of education. The degree includes studies in liberal

arts (20%) and elective studies (20%), and the remaining 60% of coursework is focused on the

student’s major subject, including courses in subject-matter knowledge, the teaching of

physics (in this case), general education, and teaching practice. The teacher education program

at Seoul National University aims to educate competent and respected teachers who have a

firm understanding of theoretical and experimental physics (Department of Physics Education

at SNU, 2011). The pedagogical studies includes general studies (36 cp) and a set of special

courses (21 cp), including pedagogical theory and teaching practice, as well as an educational

thesis. The pedagogical portion of the program takes approximately one year to complete and

is equal in length to the Finnish pedagogical studies (see Table 1).

METHOD

This paper aims to analyze the pedagogical studies of Korean and Finnish physics

teacher education programs by analyzing the programs’ curriculum documents. Data analyses

began with an inductive approach (Patton, 2002). The special focus makes it possible to

juxtapose the programs, despite the fact that the organizations devoted to teacher education,

including the credit points of the courses, differs. In practice, the aims set for the teacher

education programs in both countries were examined and categorized, first, in terms of

common themes emerging from the data. The expressions were categorized into ten themes

characterizing the special emphasis of the programs. For example, there were aims focusing

on the planning, implementation, and assessment of teaching; societal issues related to school

and education; and the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching

and learning. However, the comparison of the outcome of the analysis is difficult because in

Korean program there are several optional courses. Therefore, the comparison tell what topics

two programs aims to introduce to students – not what an individual student might learn.

The second phase of the analysis involved a discussion of the program themes within

the framework of teacher knowledge. All expressions were categorized in terms of both the

domains and origin of teacher knowledge. Three subsets of teacher knowledge domains were

used: 1) teaching and learning in general, which is associated with GPK, 2) teaching and

learning a specific physics topic, which concerns PCK, and 3) educational research and

research methodology (Res), which we added as a new domain of teacher knowledge that is

3 One credit point (cp) equals 16 hour-long lessons comprising lectures and small-group work, apart from self-directed learning. Therefore, in a one-credit-point course, a student participates one hour per week during and entire semester.

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

209

addressed in both Korean and Finnish teacher education programs. Each expression was also

categorized in accordance with the idea of distinguishing between practitioner and

professional knowledge regarding the origin of teacher knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002).

Some issues emerged during the analysis, since not all expressions were clearly related

to only one knowledge domain. For example, practical knowledge did not emerge only during

teaching practice periods, but also along with the theoretical courses. Therefore, all

expressions referring to knowledge construction through practical experience and reflection

were associated with practitioner knowledge, in terms of the origin of teacher knowledge.

Furthermore, we noticed that the theoretical approach also occurs during teaching practice,

for example, when elaborating on the reasons behind pedagogical decisions in the classroom

through conceptualization. We also made a clear distinction between the aims associated with

GPK and PCK. For instance, the expression “Student teachers learn to design physics lessons

by taking into consideration the research on teaching and learning” is considered PCK, since

the emphasis is on the representation of content knowledge and understanding specific

learning difficulties and student preconceptions (cf., Van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998).

In order to increase the validity and reliability (trustworthiness) of the analysis, three

researchers analyzed the documents together. For example, the main categories emerging

from the aims of Finnish and Korean physics teacher education (Table 2) were analyzed and

discussed together, in order to yield an appropriate number of categories that still describe the

original curricula documents. This discussion was challenging because the documents were

written in the countries’ domestic languages, Finnish and Korean. The coding of all unites

(typically sentences) in the curricula were also discussed together, in order to find agreement

among the researchers.

RESULTS

We discuss the teacher education programs in two phases in order to address the focus

of the study (i.e., to examine how physics teacher education promotes the development of

teacher knowledge). We start by describing the structure and themes of teacher education

programs in order to clarify their core ideas. Then, the aims of the curricula are analyzed

against the framework of three teacher knowledge domains (GPK, PCK, and Res) and the

origin of teacher knowledge.

The pedagogical studies of physics teacher education programs in Finland and Korea

include general theoretical parts, as well as teaching practice periods. The Finnish teacher

education program comprises six separate courses and three teaching practice periods,

whereas the Korean program consists of 17 separate courses and two teaching practice periods

(see Table 1). The amount of time spent focused on pedagogical studies is relatively the same

in both countries, about one year. The meaning of the credit points varies between Finland and

Korea. In Finland, one credit point (cp) is equal to 27 hours of work, including about 1/3 time

of lectures and workshops and 2/3 self-directed learning. In Korea, one credit point is equal

H. Krzywacki et al.

210

to 16hour-long lessons, comprising lectures and small-group work, and apart from self-

directed learning. One Finnish cp is about 2/3 of a Korean cp.

Table 1. Structure of Teacher Education Programs in Finland and Korea University of Helsinki

(Finland)

Seoul National University

(Korea)

General courses on

education, teaching and

learning

(GPK)

Psychology of development and

learning, 4 cp (Psy)

Special needs education, 4 cp (Spe)

Societal, historical and philosophical

foundations of education, 5 cp (Phil)

Total 13 cp

Compulsory (4 cp)

Understanding special education and special needs

students, 2 cp (Spe)

Understanding the nature of teaching profession, 2

cp (Work)

Optional (14 cp)

Introduction to education, 2 cp (Intro)

Educational psychology, 2 cp (Psy)

Philosophy and history of education, 2 cp (Phil)

Educational sociology, 2 cp (Socio)

Curriculum, 2 cp (Cur)

Educational evaluation, 2 cp (Eval)

Administration and management in education, 2 cp

(Admi)

Educational methodology and technology in

education, 2 cp (Tech)

Guidance and counseling, 2 cp (Guid)

Total 18 cp

Pedagogy of physics

(PCK)

Introduction to physics teaching, 10 cp (Cur)

Evaluation and development of

teaching, 7 cp (Eval)

Total 17 cp

Optional (8 cp)

Physics education, 3 cp (Phy_edu)

Textbooks and teaching in physics education, 3 cp

(Book)

Teaching practice and analysis of secondary school

physics education, 3 cp (Prac_anal)

History of physics concepts, 3 cp (Phy_con)

Logic and essay in physics, 3 cp (Phy_loc)

Total 8 cp

Educational research Teacher as a researcher seminar, 10 cp (Sem)

that comprises:

research methodology in education (3 cp)

teacher as a researcher seminar(3 cp)

minor thesis in pedagogy (4 cp)

Total 10 cp

Research on physics education (0 cp) (Phy_res)

Total 0 cp (accepted without credits)

Teaching practice Basic teaching practice in Teacher Training

School, 7 cp (B_prac)

Applied practice, 5 cp (Ap_prac)

Master's level practice in Teacher

Training School, 8 cp (Ad_prac)

Reflection, supported by portfolio assessment

work as part of teaching practice (Ref)

Total 20 cp

Teaching practice, 2 cp (Prac)

Voluntary activity in education, 2 cp (Vol_prac)

Total 4 cp

Grand total 60 cp 30 cp

1 credit point (cp) = ~27-hours of work, including

lectures, small-group work, and self-directed

learning

1 credit point (cp) = 16 hours lesson, including lectures

and small-group work, apart from self-directed learning

Note: Course acronyms are indicated in parentheses.

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

211

The organization of the pedagogical courses also differs; for example, due to the big

number of separate courses. In Korea, individual courses comprise less content and shorter

length than those in Finland. Furthermore, Korean courses are named meticulously in relation

to their content. In contrast, there are typically several aims set for individual Finnish teacher

education courses. For example, the course “Introduction to Physics Teaching” covers several

topics, such as teaching and learning physics, student interest and motivation in physics,

national and local curricula including curriculum planning, teaching and assessment methods,

and the use of ICT in physics education. Optional studies are included in the Korean teacher

education program, whereas the courses in Finland are all compulsory for everyone.

Further elaboration on the aims of the teacher educational programs reveals a multifold

picture of the core idea of teacher education in both countries. In the following sections, we

discuss the main themes emerging from the aims set for individual courses. It is noteworthy

that the course list includes overlapping themes and approaches; thus, some themes are

addressed in several parts of the program. Six categories of the aims are addressed in both

Finnish and Korean teacher education curricula, and several common themes emerge (see

Table 2). The numerical and percentage distributions of the aims across the main themes are

shown in order to juxtapose the pedagogical parts of the teacher education programs. For

example, the role of education in society is considered an important theme, especially in Korea

(27%), and to a lesser extent in Finland (19%). Consequently, student teachers become aware

of the different dimensions of the teaching profession in their own country through both

theoretical coursework and practice.

One of the common categories is reflection, which is perceived as an essential part of the

teaching profession (Finland 17%, Korea 18%). As defined by Zimmerman (2002), reflection

refers to an activity in which an experience is recalled, considered, and evaluated in order to

learn as a professional. The aims concerning reflection and reflective activities are distributed

over several courses and teaching practice periods in both the Finnish and Korean teacher

education programs.

H. Krzywacki et al.

212

Table 2. Main Categories Emerging from the Aims of Finnish and Korean Physics Teacher Education,

Definitions of the Categories, and Examples of Original Expressions

Main Category Definition Examples of Original Expressions

Planning

instruction,

teaching, and

assessment

Student teachers learn to

design a local curriculum,

plan lessons, teach, and

support students’ learning

of knowledge, skills, and

attitudes. In addition, they

learn to use versatile

methods of teaching and

assessment. Both the

national core curriculum

and research-based

knowledge about learning

and development should be

considered at all phases of

the process.

Fin (24%) Student teachers

- develop readiness to understand different views of learning. (Psy)

- become familiar with issues of group development. (Psy)

- learn interaction skills. (Psy)

- learn to design physics teaching by considering research knowledge on

teaching and learning. (Cur)

- learn how to evaluate student learning. (Eval)

Kor

(34%)

Student teachers

- learn to apply basics of educational psychology to instruction. (Psy)

- are able to select the appropriate textbooks, contents, and methods. (Book)

- learn the fundamentals of theory and practice of the physics educational

curriculum. (Cur)

- learn techniques to guide and provide counseling. (Guid)

- learn methods for applying educational evaluations in school. (Eval)

Role of education

in society

Student teachers gain

educational knowledge

about different perspectives

on the role of education in

society, such as the school

institute as part of society

and the curriculum as an

education policy document.

Fin (19%) Student teachers learn to

- analyze the historical and societal basis of the school system. (Phil)

- cooperate with various interest groups collaborating with the school, such

as parents. (Eval)

- contribute to the development of the local-level curriculum. (Eval)

- discuss critical collaboration with different interest groups. (Ad_prac)

Kor

(27%)

Student teachers

- learn about the characteristics and relevance of different fields of

educational knowledge. (Intro)

- understand the relevance of education to society. (Socio)

- learn about the conceptualization of three educational perspectives. (Intro)

Educational

research

Student teachers learn how

to apply research-based

knowledge in their teaching

and how to carry out a

small-scale educational

research program.

Fin (16%) Student teachers learn

- to apply research-based knowledge in physics teaching.

- how to utilize research methodology. (Sem)

Kor (7%) Student teachers

- learn to frame a research theme related to physics education.

- produce a thesis, including both the empirical sections and a research

literature review under the guidance of academic advisors.

(Phy_res)

Use of

information and

communication

technologies

(ICT) in teaching

and learning

Student teachers learn how

to use ICT in teaching and

learning.

Fin (4%) Student teachers develop their readiness to employ ICT in the teaching and

learning of physics. (B_prac)

Kor (2%) Student teachers learn how to apply methods, techniques, and theories of

educational technology in schoolwork. (Tech)

Reflection

Student teachers learn to

reflect. Reflection refers to

an activity in which an

experience is recalled,

considered, and evaluated.

Fin (17%) Student teachers learn to analyze their personal development as teachers.

(Cur)

Kor

(18%)

Student teachers learn to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each

theory on teaching practice. (Socio)

School practice

Student teachers gain

some teaching experience

and understand that

multiprofessional

collaboration is part of

school work.

Fin (7%) Student teachers learn how to work in multiprofessional collaboration at

schools and to assume professional responsibility. (Ad_prac)

Kor (6%) Student teachers play an active role as educational volunteers and acquire

teaching experience. (Vol_prac)

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

213

It is also noteworthy to pay attention to special themes that emerge in only one of the

teacher education programs. Special themes cover 14% of Finnish and 9% of Korean programs.

Discussing the different needs of students and considering how to support various learners

comprise a special theme in Finnish teacher education, which aims to emphasize the

importance of providing equal learning opportunities to various kinds of learners. Moreover,

the nature of science, especially concerning physics as a school subject, is also discussed as a

topic in the course “Introduction to physics teaching” in Finland (see Table 3).

Table 3. Special Themes Addressed Only in Finnish Physics Teacher Education

On the other hand, the pedagogical courses in the Korean teacher education program

address issues related to educational reality and school context, as well as a teacher’s attitude

(see Table 4). Interestingly, the latter category concerns the view of an ideal (physics) teacher

and his commitment to the teaching profession.

Table 4. Special Themes Addressed only in Korean Teacher Education

The Finnish and Korean teacher education programs are shown in a somewhat different

light in terms of the domains and origin of teacher knowledge. As illustrated in Table 5, the

emphasis on different domains of teacher knowledge varies. Generally, the aims of the Finnish

program are more equally distributed among the three domains of teacher knowledge than

those of its Korean counterpart. The Finnish teacher education curriculum is grounded on the

balanced structure of GPK, PCK, and research knowledge. In contrast, Korean teacher

education seems to be grounded more strongly on GPK (71%) than is the case in Finland (49%),

Main Category Definition Examples of Original Expressions

Different needs

of students

(11%)

Student teachers learn to consider the

different needs of students and to

identify students’ learning difficulties.

Student teachers learn to

- identify different kinds of learners. (B_prac)

- identify pupils' learning difficulties. (Spe)

The nature of

the subject

(physics)

(3%)

Student teachers learn to design

physics lessons and take into account

the nature of science.

Student teachers learn to design subject (physics)

lessons by considering the epistemological and

ontological assumptions of the subject. (Eval)

Main

Category Definition Examples of Original Expressions

Educational

reality (4%)

Student teachers learn about educational

practice, reality, and school context. They

also learn how to solve problems at school.

Student teachers understand the characteristics

of physics education and discuss practices from

an educational perspective. (Intro)

Teacher's

attitude

(5%)

Student teachers learn about an ideal

teacher's attitude, role and duties, as well as

mission and professionalism.

Student teachers learn about the profound

attitude of an ideal teacher. (Prac)

H. Krzywacki et al.

214

which confirms the results published by Kim, Ham, and Paine (2011), Park (2000), and Yun

(2002). In essence, the main themes of GPK are the same in both programs, except that the

needs of different kinds of learners form a special theme discussed only in Finnish physics

teacher education.

Both Finnish and Korean teacher education programs place approximately the same

emphasis on PCK. According to our analysis, issues related to planning instruction, teaching

and assessment, and aims regarding reflection, are discussed not only at a general level, but

also in the context of physics education. In the Finnish program, other themes, such as the use

of ICT in teaching and learning physics and the different needs of students, are also discussed

from the special perspective of teaching and learning physics.

Interestingly, the emphasis on educational research and carrying out a research project

is greater in the Finnish (16%) teacher education program than in the Korean (4%) one.

However, the research category provides information only about activities that aim either to

produce research or to learn about the research process itself. Many expressions of using and

applying research knowledge were associated with other domains of teacher knowledge, such

as PCK.

Table 5. Numerical and Percentage Distributions of the Aims across the Main Categories in Finnish

and Korean Teacher Education

Main category

Numerical and percentage distributions of the aims

Finland South Korea

GPK PCK Res Total GPK PCK Res Total

1. Planning instruction,

teaching and assessment

7 11 18 24% 11 10 21 34%

2. Role of education in society 14 14 19% 17 17 27%

3. Educational research 12 12 16% 4 4 7%

4. Use of ICT in teaching and

learning

3 3 4% 1 1 2%

5. Reflection 7 6 13 17% 7 4 11 18%

6. School practice 5 5 7% 4 4 6%

7. Different needs of students 4 4 8 11% 0

8. The nature of the subject

(physics)

2 2 3% 0

9. Educational reality 0 2 2 4%

10.Teacher's attitude 0 3 3 5%

37 26 12 75 45 14 4 63

49% 35% 16% 100% 71% 22% 6% 100%

Finally, we discuss the Finnish and Korean teacher education programs by comparing

the distribution of teacher knowledge domains against the categorization of knowledge origin

(see Table 6). In Finland, 53% of the aims are associated with professional knowledge and 47%

with practitioner knowledge. The corresponding results concerning Korean teacher education

comprise 73% and 27%, respectively. The Finnish system seems to be rather balanced in terms

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

215

of the origin of teacher knowledge, while a professional approach to teacher knowledge

dominates the Korean teacher education program. The findings are partly a consequence of

the roles of teaching practice and research orientation in the programs. Teaching practice

constitutes 20 credit points of Finnish teacher education, which forms one-third of the

pedagogical studies (60 cp) (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Pehkonen, Ahtee, & Lavonen,

2007). In the Korean program, only four credit points are allocated for teaching practice, which

is equal to one-seventh of the program (30 cp).

Table 6. Comparison of Numerical and Percentage Distributions of Teacher Knowledge Domains

against the Origins of Teachers’ Knowledge

Origin of Teacher

Knowledge

GPK PCK Res

Together

Practitioner Finland 22 29% 8 11% 5 7% 35 47%

Korea 7 11% 6 10% 4 6% 17 27%

Theoretical Finland 15 20% 18 24% 7 9% 40 53%

Korea 38 60% 8 13% 0 0% 46 73%

Total Finland

Korea

37

45

49%

71%

26

14

35%

22%

12

4

16%

6%

75

63

Finnish physics teachers’ pedagogical studies include a relatively small amount of aims

concerning the practitioner’s approach to PCK. Instead, PCK is approached rather

theoretically, whereas the practitioner approach is likely associated with general themes of

education. The Korean approach to PCK is more balanced concerning practitioner and

theoretical approaches, although no special stress is laid on PCK in the program. Both Korean

and Finnish student teachers are expected to be involved with the research process in

accordance with the aims of their programs, such as using educational research and engaging

with research activities as part of teacher education (cf., Pendry & Husbands, 2000). The core

of the pedagogical studies in Korea is founded on general pedagogical themes that are

approached theoretically (60%). Research knowledge is included in both Finnish and Korean

teacher education, but only the Finnish program provides a theoretical approach to research

themes.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

We have examined and compared the pedagogical studies in Finnish and Korean

physics teacher education programs by analyzing what kind of knowledge construction they

aim to support. Notably, it is impossible to examine the actual amount of lesson hours

allocated to particular themes by analyzing and categorizing the aims of the pedagogical

studies. Instead, the classification lets us discuss the importance of each category that reflects

a particular subset of aims and provides a fruitful ground for elaborating on special features,

as well as the organization of initial teacher education. The analysis helps us understand what

aims the programs emphasize. We have focused on the pedagogical studies in teacher

H. Krzywacki et al.

216

education that aim directly to improve pre-service teachers’ professional abilities (Kim et al.,

2011; Shulman, 1986).

The organization of pedagogical studies as part of the physics teacher education

program varies to some extent between Korea and Finland. Both Finnish and Korean teacher

education seem to place the same emphasis on pedagogical studies in relation to the overall

program. However, it is also noteworthy that the Korean program is carried out at the four-

year bachelor’s degree level, whereas Finnish physics teachers acquire their qualifications for

the teaching profession during a five-year master’s level program. However, the amount of

time spent on pedagogical studies in the program is almost the same, even though the

calculation of credit points differs. Finnish teachers are claimed to have a profound starting

point as professionals due to the emphasis on initial teacher education. Even Finnish students’

success in the PISA testing is perceived as a consequence of the high quality of their

schoolteachers (Hautamäki et al., 2008; Sahlberg, 2008). However, the role of Korean teachers

in Korean students’ success has not been emphasized as much. An explanation is that Korea

currently has the world’s largest system of supplementary private “cram schools” and tutors

(Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Kim, Lavonen, & Ogawa, 2009), which that hardly exist in the

Finnish education system.

In general, pedagogical studies of physics teacher education programs can be organized

as fostering primarily either higher competence levels in particular themes or by their general

stance towards the teaching profession (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grossman,

1990; Hargreaves, 1994; Levin, 2008). Teacher educators who emphasize the role of teachers as

deliverers of information tend to support developing a thorough knowledge base, while those

who stress the reflective and investigative role are likely to rely on a reflective and research-

based approach, with less emphasis on particular contents (Hargreaves, 1994; Levin, 2008). In

practice, the question of depth versus breadth involves the degree of specialization and the

integration of courses (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grossman, 1990). The

distribution of and emphasis on courses differ greatly between Korean and Finnish teacher

education. The number of courses is greater in Korea than in Finland, where the amount of

separate courses has been reduced based on student feedback (Lavonen & Krzywacki, 2008).

It seems that, in Finland, this reduction has led to a need to consider carefully the core ideas

and compose a coherent whole in general, while Korean teacher education aims to cover a

broader range of topics. The Korean program comprises several individual courses. For

example, the themes concerning educational sociology, philosophy, and history are discussed

in separate courses in Korea, whereas the Finnish program addresses the same themes in a

single integrated course.

The emphasis placed on different teacher knowledge domains reflects the national

education cultures of both countries, and the basis of both Korean and Finnish teacher

education programs has been developed over several decades (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006;

Kang, 1995). A comparison of the programs reveals distinct approaches to the different

domains of teacher knowledge. Pedagogical studies in Korean teacher education clearly

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

217

prioritize GPK, while the Finnish program is based on a rather balanced distribution among

the three domains of teacher knowledge. Furthermore, some themes reveal the special

emphasis of the Finnish education system, such as focusing on how to address the various

needs of students. The theme of differentiation and special needs education is included in the

Finnish program as a result of the national education policy that stresses equality.

It is also possible to characterize teacher education programs by elaborating on missing

themes. For example, Korean teacher education lacks the theme of special needs education,

which is not highlighted in the national education policy. Moreover, neither Korean nor

Finnish teacher education programs have set special goals related to collaboration with

parents and various societal interests. However, these issues are dealt with slightly during

teaching practice periods. Only a small number of goals are related to the use of ICT in teaching

and learning. It is noteworthy that the European Commission (2010) emphasizes the

significance of both school partnerships and collaboration and the utilization of technological

applications in schools.

Most of the differences are consequences of the historical development of teacher

education in both countries (Kang, 1995; Kansanen, 1993; Kwak, 1998). The pedagogical

studies as a part of the Finnish teacher education program have focused on PCK, on

“didactics” to be precise, since the master-level teacher education qualification was established

at the end of the 1970s (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Simola, 1998). From the beginning, the

balance between PCK and GPK has been attained in Finnish teacher education. Furthermore,

the research orientation has been regarded as a guiding principle of the Finnish program,

where student teachers learn about and through research (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006;

Lavonen & Krzywacki, 2008; Teacher Education Development Program, 2001). The research

orientation is realized over several courses and during the teaching practice period by using

and producing educational research (cf., Korthagen, Loughran, & Russel, 2006). Activities aim

not only to produce and understand research, but also to build readiness for lifelong learning

and taking a critical stance towards teaching. Second, through an emphasis on research,

teachers are educated on how to research or reflect on their own practice and improve it

(Evagorou et al., 2015). Consequently, the emphasis on research orientation helps strike a

balance between the aims focusing on professional and practitioner knowledge. Student

teachers become familiar with research through various activities that are founded on recent

educational research. All three teacher knowledge domains have been emphasized equally in

Finnish teacher education, with no radical changes over the years.

The Korean education policy on teacher education has been different due to its

continuous process of change. However, its development has not concerned the balance

among different teacher knowledge domains (Kang, 1995; Kwak, 1998; Park, 2000). Since the

1970s, Korean teacher education has aimed primarily at developing GPK, which is regarded

as essential for the profession (Kang, 1995; Kim, 2005; Yun, 2002). However, research

knowledge and skills have not been considered a crucial part of bachelor-level teacher

H. Krzywacki et al.

218

education (Park, 2000; SNUCE, 2009). Student teachers are required to complete a minor thesis,

but research knowledge plays a rather insignificant role in the program.

The pedagogical studies of physics teacher education programs appear quite different if

approached in terms of the origin of teacher knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002). Several scholars

have stressed the importance of finding a balance between professional (theoretical) and

practitioner knowledge (see e.g., Grossman, 1990; Hargreaves, 1994; Richardson, 1997).

University-level education has traditionally aimed at helping students to gain professional

knowledge, for example, through the reading different texts, articles, and research literature.

On the other hand, practitioner knowledge is acquired through student teachers’ practical

experience during teaching practice periods only (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005;

Levin, 2008). Pedagogical studies in both Korea and Finland include a limited amount of this

kind of practical experience. Since practitioner knowledge is unlikely absorbed

straightforwardly from practical experience, reflective activities play an essential role in both

Korean and Finnish teacher education.

Reflective activities require students to assume an active role by setting personal goals

apart from the official general aims for teaching practice. Student teachers are encouraged to

note observations of their own activities, both inside and outside the classroom, and, finally,

to reflect on these notions against the original aims (cf., Rodgers, 2002). Supervision helps to

approach practical experience from different perspectives, and their degree of independence

increases along with their progress. The emphasis on professional or practitioner knowledge

in a teacher education program is a consequence of the philosophical stance towards learning

in general (Hargreaves, 1994; Richardson, 1997). The Finnish teacher education program

emphasizes subjectivity in building knowledge and skills, so that student teachers are

expected to integrate subject-matter knowledge, PCK, and GPK into their own personal

pedagogical theories (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Pehkonen et al., 2007). In contrast, the

Korean teacher education program is based on the idea of teachers as deliverers of knowledge

(Kang, 1995; Kim, 2005; Park, 2000; Yun, 2002). Consequently, the Korean program seems to

stress a solid ground for a broad range of knowledge and skills that teachers should acquire

(Lee, 1995). This knowledge is also tested with a written examination when a teacher applies

for a position at a public or private school. The result is the emphasis on professional

knowledge in the Korean program.

The outcome of the content analysis of Finnish and Korean pedagogical studies of

physics teacher education programs could be easily reflected in terms of an ideal professional

or an effective teacher. In both countries, teachers hold high status; therefore, teacher

professionalism is recognized (Müller, Norrie, Hernández, & Goodson, 2010). Nonetheless, in

Korea, an ideal teacher is regarded as effective, rather than professional, due to the emphasis

on the comparison of student learning outcomes and ranking to evaluate teachers (Williamson

& Walberg, 2004). The Korean education system is close to the accountability approach, where

testing is organized in order to identify effective and ineffective schools and teachers.

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

219

To conclude, the domains and origins of teacher knowledge make it possible to elaborate

on the structure and organization of the pedagogical studies of physics teacher education

programs and thus to juxtapose two different teacher education programs representing

distinct traditions. The domains of teacher knowledge and the emphasis of separate domains

provide a perspective on teacher education, but a deeper examination is possible only by

explaining teacher education through the origin of knowledge. The programs educate teachers

based on different education contexts, which is advisable to keep in mind when drawing

conclusions from the analyses. Actually, the analyses of the programs reflect, to a large extent,

the countries’ educational contexts. As Lederman and Lederman (2015) argue, because of the

differences in context, we must conclude that there is no single best way to educate future

physics teachers.

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K., Rogers, M. P., Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Gagnon, M. J. (2009). Preparing the next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-90.

Auguste, B., Kihn, P., & Miller, M. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top third graduates to a career in teaching: An international and market research-based perspective. Washington, DC: McKinsey.

Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brinkman, F. G., & van Rens, E. (1999). Student teachers’ research skills as experienced in their educational training. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 115–125.

Bullough Jr., R. V., Clark, D. C., & Patterson, R. S. (2003). Getting in step: Accountability, accreditation and the standardization of teacher education in the United States. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 29(1), 35–51.

Carlsen, W. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 133–144). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cohen, D. (2008). Knowledge and teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 34(3), 357–378. College of Education at Seoul National University (SNUCE) (2009). Introduction to College of Education

at Seoul National University. Seoul: SNUCE. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy

evidence. Educational Policy Analysis and Archives, 8(1), 1-45, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Department of Physics Education at Seoul National University (SNUDPE) (2011). Introduction to Department of Physics Education at Seoul National University. Seoul: SNUDPE.

European Commission (2010). Common European principles for teacher competences and qualifications. Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/principles_en.pdf

Evagorou, M., Dillon, J., Viiri, J, & Albe, V. (2015) Pre-service science teacher preparation in Europe: Comparing pre-service teacher preparation programs in England, France, Finland and Cyprus. The status of preservice science teacher education: A global perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 99-115.

H. Krzywacki et al.

220

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999).Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, T. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ thinking on research: Implications for inquiry oriented teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 15, 753–769.

Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Gore, J., & Gitlin, A. (2004). [Re] visioning the academic-teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10(1), 35–58.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Hargreaves, D. (1994). The new professionalism: Synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 10(4), 423–438.

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-324.

Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.

Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699-729.

Hautamäki, J. et al. (Eds.) (2008). PISA: Analyses reflections explanations. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would

it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher 31(5), 3–15. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Niemi, H. (2006). The Bologna process and its implementation in teacher

education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Research-based teacher education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish teacher educators (pp. 17–50). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.

Kang, H. G. (1995). Teacher education. Seoul: Gyohak-yeongu Publications. [in Korean] Kansanen, P. (1993). Some general reflections on essence of didactics. Didaktisk Tidskrift 3, 17–29. Kansanen, P. (2002). Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key

concept across research communities. International Review of Education, 48(6), 427–441. Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfors, L., Husu, J., & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers' pedagogical

thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. American University Studies xiv 47. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Kim, B. C. (2001). Comparative analysis on teacher education program between Korea and U.S.A. The Journal of Educational Administration, 19(4), 201–228. [in Korean

Kim, M., Lavonen, J., & Ogawa, M. (2009). Experts' opinion on the high achievement of scientific literacy in PISA 2003: A comparative study in Finland and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 379–393.

Kim, N. S. (2005). Teacher education. Seoul: Hakjisa Publication. [in Korean] Kim R. Y., Ham, S. W., & Paine, L. W. (2011). Knowledge expectations in mathematics teacher

preparation programs in South Korea and the United States: Towards international dialogue. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 48–61.

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

221

Kim, Y., & Kim, M. (2002). Analysis of educational situation of cram schools designed to prepare students for college entrance examination. Seoul: Korea Educational Development Institute.

Korthagen, F. (2007). The gap between research and practice revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation 13(3), 303–310.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russel, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041.

Kwak, Y. W. (1998). Educational reform and developmental issues of college of education. Korean Teacher Education, 15(1), 88–108. [in Korean]

Laukkanen, R. (2008). Finnish strategy for high-level education for all. In N. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp. 305–324). AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Lavonen, J., & Krzywacki, H. (2011). Teachers’ professional knowledge in Finnish secondary teacher education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Education, April 2011. Taichung, Taiwan: National Taichung University.

Lavonen, J., & Krzywacki, H. (2008). Research-based approach in pedagogical studies within Finnish science teacher education: Student teachers’ experiences and evaluation. In B. Cavas (Ed.), Proceedings of the XIII IOSTE Symposium on The Use of Science and Technology Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, 21–26 September 2008 (pp. 89–95). Kuşadası/Turkey Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University.

Lavonen, J., Krzywacki, H., Aksela, M., Krokfors, L., Oikkonen, J., & Saarikko, H. (2007). Pre-service teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science? (pp. 49–67). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2015). The Status of Preservice Science Teacher Education: A Global Perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 1-6.

Lee, J. J. (1995). Position of college of education at university and structure of curriculum. Secondary Education of Kyung Sang University, 7, 38–72. [in Korean]

Levin, B. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTS). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55–68.

Lieberman, A. (1992). Teacher leadership: What are we learning? In C. Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as Leaders: Evolving Roles (pp. 159-166). Washington, D.C., United States: National Education Association.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) (2009). Education in Korea 2009–2010. Seoul: MEST.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2010). Educational policies in Korea. Seoul: MEST.

Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Müller, J., Norrie, C., Hernández, F., & Goodson, I. (2010). Restructuring teachers’ work‐lives and knowledge in England and Spain. Compare, 40(3), 265-277.

NCCBE (2014). The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/ops2016

Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281–1299.

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.

OECD (2005). OECD in Figures – 2005 edition. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,2340,en_2649_34489_2345918_1_1_1_1,00.html

H. Krzywacki et al.

222

OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD. OECD (2010). PISA 2009: Volume 2: Data. Paris: OECD. Park, S. I. (Ed.). (2002). Reforming schools in Korea: Beyond the "equalisation policy" debate. Seoul:

Korea Development Institute. [in Korean] Park, S. W. (2000). Paradigm of teacher education at college of education. Journal of Educational

Administration, 18(2), 275–298. [in Korean] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. Pehkonen, E., Ahtee, M., & Lavonen, J. (2007). How Finns learn mathematics and science. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers. Pendry, A., & Husbands, C. (2000). Research and practice in history teacher education. Cambridge Journal

of Education, 30(3), 321–334. Reis-Jorge, J. M. (2005). Developing teachers’ knowledge and skills as researchers: A conceptual

framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 303–319. Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist teacher education. Bristol: Falmer Press. Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data.

American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers

College Record, 104(4), 842–856. Sahlberg, P. (2008). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change,

10(2), 1–2. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,

15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review,

57, 1–22. Simola, H. (1998). Constructing a school-free pedagogy: Decontextualization of Finnish state

educational discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 339–356. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and

teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (2001). Professional development and reform in

science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

Williamson, M. E., & Walberg H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Testing student learning, evaluating teaching effectiveness. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

Yun, J. I. (2002). Developing the quality of education and direction of teacher education system. Paper presented at the 36th Seminar of Korean Teacher Education Association. (pp. 7–27). [in Korean]

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

http://iserjournals.com/journals/eurasia